Since my opponent failed to make an affirmative case, as it stands, I should win this debate by default, due to my opponent having he burden of proof. However, I will construct a negative case.

Negative Case

Preface:

I need to make it abundantly clear what my line of argument will not be. My arguments are not:

1) Homosexuality is a mental disease, sickness or any other kind of pathology

2) Homosexuals do not deserve basic human rights

3) Homosexuals are incapable of raising children

Now that the above is clear, my general argument will:

1. Determine the nature of marriage

2. Determine whether there is intrinsic social value

3. On the chance that 2 is confirmed, justify governments in treating this intrinsic social value with differentiated treatment (i.e. not recognising homosexual relationships as marriage etc.)

In order to understand what can qualify as ‘should be’ (i.e. gay marriage should be legal), we first need to understand what marriage is and why it is that way. I champion the conjugal view, which is that marriage, via the view of essentialism, exists with three essential aspects:

1. Comprehensive union

2. A special link to children

3. Monogamy

It is with these three essential components that marriage forms. Allow me to demonstrate:

A1. Comprehensive union

Premise: The body is part of the person. A person is not inseparable from their body in a metaphysical sense. To move someone’s arm is to move a person. To move someone’s bike is not to move a person.

What counts as a comprehensive union?: From this premise, we can begin to understand what exactly entails comprehensive unity, but more importantly, why this bodily unity is necessary. Let us say Airmax and his banhammer pledge to ban everyone on DDO, till death do them part. Does that make them married? No. You can replace DDO-modding with any non-sexual activity and no one from this partnership will be married. It is sexual exclusivity, which acknowledges a special kind of union, which is an essential component of comprehensive union -- two people must unite organically (i.e. in a special way). Let me show you why:

Organic unity: Now, for people to unite organically, much like the organs of a body unite to sustain life, people’s bodies require coordination to a biological end. For you see, without connecting to another, an individual is always incomplete, in regards to sexual reproduction. In coitus, both bodies become one.

Important notes:

Some important notes to take from this logical progression is that a comprehensive union is NOT dependent on conception. In other words, it does not matter if children are formed in coitus because the comprehensive union is comprehensive without them.

Another important note is that homosexual union defies comprehensive union, much like sticking a tree-branch into a vagina (not recommended) is not considered enough for marriage, nor kissing or hugging, nor does homosexual sex meet the requirements for marriage. This is not to say that homosexual sex is an abomination, or that homosexual love is illegitimate, rather that homosexual union is not comprehensive union.

Further value in comprehensive union:

Heterosexual sex is in itself valuable due to it being the only way in which life can come into existence.

Value of comprehensive union:

A clear-cut, logical explanation of a comprehensive union avoids an infinite regression of arbitrary delineations (i.e. arguments wherein marriage is just about “happiness” quickly run into trouble due to their lack in valid distinctions, as “happiness”).

A2: A special link to children

As indicated by the complete union present in marriage, marriage then becomes orientated towards child-bearing and rearing.

Critical point #1: a CRITICAL distinction to be made here is that child-birth and/or rearing are NOT necessary for a marriage to be a marriage, rather they can be a natural result of the marriage. In other words,marriage has a special (intrinsic) link to children, but that does not mean that the (extrinsic) birth of children is necessary for a marriage to be a marriage.

Critical point #2: infertile heterosexual couples can still be married, despite not necessarily having the ability to procreate. Take this analogy: a cricket team (heterosexual union) is naturally structured towards winning a game of cricket (procreation). However, in the event that a cricket team does not win a cricket game (does not procreate), then this does not mean a cricket team is not a cricket team (heterosexual union is not heterosexual union).

On this point, same-sex partnerships cannot be considered marriages due to this essential orientation to children.

Heterosexual relationships, on average, are better at raising children than homosexual unions: This is not to say that homosexuals parents are damaging to children, rather that they are, on balance, inferior to heterosexual parents. Signed by seventy scholars, I offer you the Witherspoon researched paper: Marriage and the Public Good: Ten Principles [1]. This paper, which collaborates dozens of researched papers, drew the conclusion that: “children fare best on virtually every indicator of wellbeing when reared by their wedded biological parents”. The studies that controlled for factors such as poverty and genetics found children reared in intact, heterosexual marriages have quote:

Evolutionary psychology: “Genes producing effects that increase their replicative success will replace other genes, producing evolution over time. Adaptations are selected and evolve because they promote inclusive fitness” [2]. This manifests in parents having a natural inclination to take best care of their own children, meaning that parents will raise non-biological children poorer, all things being equal, because that was the behaviour that would have left parents most likely to continue their biological lineage.

Heterosexual marriage is special in being the best environment to raise a child, if the married couple so wishes. It is not that homosexuals cannot raise children properly, but rather there should be a distinction in terms made for the quality of child-rearing institutions, that heterosexual marriage is best designed for child-rearing whilst homosexual union is less so.

A3: Monogamy

Via this element of marriage, the union deepens the potential for excellence in child-birth, child-rearing and whatever other reasons heterosexual couples have for union. Whilst it is true that homosexuals are capable of monogamy, their means to the ends of monogamy is different. Homosexual unions come from a place of partial union, like “happiness”. On the other hand, heterosexual unions that become marriages are complete, in that the union is complete in every facet.

Important point: This is not to say that homosexual unions are useless valueless, rather that they have less social value than complete heterosexual union, and thus a distinction is fair.

Brief Conclusion

Since certain types of heterosexual unions (marriages) are inherently valuable which manifests in reality, they should be valued. Whilst certain homosexual unions can also be valuable, they are not valuable in the same way that hetersoexual unions are, thus it would be incorrect as well as damaging to label heterosexual marriage and homosexual union with the same term despite them being quite different. Hence, you should be against gay marriage.